nanog mailing list archives
Re: PI vs PA Address Space
From: peter () swan lanl gov
Date: Fri, 19 May 95 15:07:55 MST
As an aside, is anyone else besides Sprint behind this /18 model?
The hard core /18 model ("we won't accept prefixes greater than length 18") is untenable and throws out one of CIDR's features. It does not allow for a time period where a customer is migrating from provider A to provider B and will have end systems living within both provider based prefixes at any instant during the migration. The user community should not be forced into flash cuts, and the providers can make the needed overlap period of time work for bounded time frames. At a minimum, the model needs to be /18+E (E==entropy due to customer migrations). peter
Current thread:
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space, (continued)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Sean Doran (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Karl Denninger, MCSNet (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael Dillon (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Peter Berger (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Sean Doran (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space David R Conrad (May 19)
- PI vs PA Address Space Daniel Karrenberg (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space peter (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 20)